Validate Active Crab-hole State

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destrctiveHint=false, so the bias is covered by structured data. The description adds a small behavioral detail by saying 'native' validators and 'list validators', indicating the tool uses Crab-hole's own mechanism and may produce a list of validators. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not reveal any significant new behavioral traits such as output format or system impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the non-destructive guarantee. It contains no filler words. The only issue is grammar awkwardness in 'native configuration and list validators', which slightly reduces clarity but does not waste space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with supportive annotations, the description covers the essential operation and safety. However, it does not describe what the tool returns or how it relates to validate_posed_config, which is a relevant sibling. The ambiguity between 'list validators' and running them also leaves a small gap in completenes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema has 100% description coverage. With no params, the description has no additional meaning to provide, so the baseline of 4 applies. The lack of param explanation is irrelevant here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb 'Run' and a resource 'Crab-hole's native configuration and list validators', plus the key constraint 'without changing anything'. It clearly conveys that this validates the active state, and the title 'Validate Active Crab-hole State' reinforces the purpose. However, the phrasing 'configuration and list validators' is slightly awkward and could be misinterpreted as validating a list rather than running validators.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'without changing anything' implies this is a read-only validation, but it does not explicitely state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like validate_proposed_config or get_crab_hole_config. No exclusion or alternative is named, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.